Chandrabhan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 27065 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 27065 ALL
Judgement Date : 4 October, 2023

Allahabad High Court

Chandrabhan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 October, 2023

Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Vivek Kumar Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190327-DB
 

 
Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15513 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Chandrabhan
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amish Kumar Srivastava,Suresh Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length as also the learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. The writ petition seeks the following relief:-

"A. Issue appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith."

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a life convict and that his conviction has been affirmed in appeal by this Court vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2001.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody right from the order of this Court passed in appeal in the year 2001 and therefore has suffered at least 22 years of incarceration till date. He has filed an application for premature release in the year 2012 which has not been disposed of till date.

5. Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the petitioner is a life convict in a case relating to 9 murders. Apart from that there are 7 injured persons. He has also pointed out that the relevant Rules/Guidelines framed for consideration of applications for remission/premature release provide that a life convict in a multiple murder case is not entitled to any remission.

6. Under the circumstances and since the only option available to this Court is to direct for consideration of the application for premature release, which in the scenario detailed above, would be an exercise in futility, we do not find it a fit case for interference.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. After the aforesaid order has been passed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the co-accused has been granted remission by the State.

9. This Court is, prima facie, of the opinion that such remission has been wrongly granted as the same is contrary to the Rules/Guidelines framed whereunder the application for remission/premature release is to be considered by the State.

Order Date :- 4.10.2023

Rakesh